Conference equity in global health: a systematic review of factors impacting LMIC representation at global health conferences.

INTRODUCTION: Global health conferences are important platforms for knowledge exchange, decision-making and personal and professional growth for attendees. Neocolonial patterns in global health at large and recent opinion reports indicate that stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be under-represented at such conferences. This study aims to describe the factors that impact LMIC representation at global health conferences. METHODS: A systematic review of articles reporting factors determining global health conference attendance was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles presenting conference demographics and data on the barriers and/or facilitators to attendance were included. Articles were screened at title and abstract level by four independent reviewers. Eligible articles were read in full text, analysed and evaluated with a risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Among 8765 articles screened, 46 articles met inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis yielded two themes: 'barriers to conference attendance' and 'facilitators to conference attendance'. In total, 112 conferences with 254 601 attendees were described, of which 4% of the conferences were hosted in low-income countries. Of the 98 302 conference attendees, for whom affiliation was disclosed, 38 167 (39%) were from LMICs. CONCLUSION: 'Conference inequity' is common in global health, with LMIC attendees under-represented at global health conferences. LMIC attendance is limited by systemic barriers including high travel costs, visa restrictions and lower acceptance rates for research presentations. This may be mitigated by relocating conferences to visa-friendly countries, providing travel scholarships and developing mentorship programmes to enable LMIC researchers to participate in global conferences.

Bacterial Load and Molecular Markers Associated With Early-onset Group B Streptococcus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of neonatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) is poorly understood. Little is known about the bacterial factors influencing the transmission of GBS from mother to neonate, or the development of invasive early-onset GBS disease (EOGBS) in colonized neonates. We reviewed whether bacterial load and molecular markers are associated with GBS vertical transmission and progression to EOGBS. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science from inception to October 10, 2016, for observational studies in English. We also hand-searched reference lists of relevant publications and experts cross-checked included studies. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and appraised the quality of included studies using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses where possible and narratively synthesized the evidence in text and tables. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included from 1107 records retrieved from electronic databases and publication references. Meta-analyses of 3 studies showed that neonates colonized by serotype III had a higher risk of developing EOGBS than serotype Ia (pooled risk ratio: 1.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.12-2.03) and serotype II (risk ratio: 1.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-3.45). Eleven studies showed that in heavily colonized mothers, 2-3 times more neonates were colonized, and in heavily colonized neonates, up to 15 times more neonates had EOGBS, compared with light colonization. Most evidence was published before 2000 and was at risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the difficulty of natural history studies, well-controlled studies are needed to assess the predictive value of pathogen subtype and heavy load; they may be useful for better-targeted prevention.

Adverse events in women and children who have received intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis treatment: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) are poorly documented yet essential to inform clinical practice for neonatal group B Streptococcus (GBS) disease prevention. In this systematic review, we appraised and synthesised the evidence on the adverse events of IAP in the mother and/or her child. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Science Citation Index from date of inception until October 16th 2016. Reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were hand-searched. We included primary studies in English that reported any adverse events from intrapartum antibiotics for any prophylactic purpose compared to controls. The search was not restricted to prophylaxis for GBS but excluded women with symptoms of infection or undergoing caesarean section. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies. Results were synthesised narratively and displayed in text and tables. RESULTS: From 2364 unique records, 30 studies were included. Despite a wide range of adverse events reported in 17 observational studies and 13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the evidence was inconsistent and at high risk of bias. Only one RCT investigated the long-term effects of IAP reporting potentially serious outcomes such as cerebral palsy; however, it had limited applicability and unclear biological plausibility. Seven observational studies showed that IAP for maternal GBS colonisation alters the infant microbiome. However, study populations were not followed through to clinical outcomes, therefore clinical significance is unknown. There was also observational evidence for increased antimicrobial resistance, however studies were at high or unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base to determine the frequency of adverse events from intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis for neonatal GBS disease prevention is limited. As RCTs may not be possible, large, better quality, and longitudinal observational studies across countries with widespread IAP could fill this gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42016037195 .